A pair of Division II’s “big-picture” issues acquired sharper focus at the 2006 Convention — but the additional clarity hasn’t necessarily resulted in across-the-board acceptance.

January 8 forums about Division II postseason football and championships regionalization revealed more consensus than has been apparent in the past.

The regionalization question has been especially challenged over the last two years, with model after model having been debated and rebuffed.

This time around, the membership seemed to positively acknowledge the effort of Division II’s Regionalization Task Force, and a number of constituents also applauded a proposed plan.

In short, the proposal would create common regions for sports with similar bracket sizes and, among other things, would count conference games, games against in-state opponents and games against opponents in contiguous states as in-region contests.

“A lot of work and thought went into this plan,” said South Atlantic Conference Commissioner Doug Echols. “And the use of the contiguous states is a real plus. For the majority of conferences, this becomes workable.”

But not for all.

Barry Blizzard, commissioner of the West Virginia Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, said he was disappointed by how his conference was placed and was especially concerned about potential travel for postseason events.

“We’ve got one school that is a bedroom community of Washington, D.C., and we conceivably could play a regional contest in Missouri,” he said. “Now, if we were placed in the Mid-Atlantic region, we would be playing regionals in Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and North Carolina with the PSAC and the CIAA, which makes much more sense to me.”

Although it wouldn’t help with his postseason travel concern, Blizzard and some other commissioners would prefer for the contiguous-state concept to be broadened to include contiguous regions. He noted that under the contiguous-state proposal, a number of schools in the southern half of the WVIAC would be discouraged from playing geographically desirable opponents in North Carolina because they are separated by a 60-mile strip of Virginia and thus are not contiguous.

But others urged caution in broadening regional play. “If we used contiguous regions, we could count almost anybody east of the Mississippi,” Echols said.

There was more agreement on the plan of the Division II Football Task Force, which has proposed two Division II football championships — one for institutions offering up to 24 equivalencies and another for institutions offering up to 40.

“We’re certainly happy with the work that the task force has done,” said Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference Commissioner J.R. Smith, whose conference co-sponsored a 2005 Convention proposal to reduce football equivalencies for all Division II football teams to 24. That proposal was defeated, but it led to the creation of the Football Task Force.

Smith and others did not appear overly concerned about exactly where the equivalency limits for the two proposed championships would fall, although there does seem to be  skepticism that the division will approve football at a 40-equivalency level.

The harder question, he said, will involve how to divide the current 24-team bracket into two events.

“That will be a sticking point,” Blizzard said, “because there’s such a limited number of spots, and people are going to see missed opportunities, I’m afraid.”

Echols echoed the concern, saying he did not want to see good teams left out of postseason play as a result of a smaller bracket.

However, Sunshine State Conference Commissioner Mike Marcil said this discussion may create an opportunity for Division II to consider further bracket expansion in football and other sports.

Although Marcil’s conference does not play football (“Never say never...You never know if we are going to have football,” he said), he said his league was nonetheless interested in the proposal.

“If there’s some way they could have that model and still keep the bracket as large as possible, then I think you really have a win-win all the way around,” he said. “If they have to split up the bracket so that it’s going to be really tight to get in, then I think that would be more difficult.”

He said that broadening championship access in football and other sports could help solve both the football and regionalization questions by reducing the pressures that create the problems in the first place.

“You could argue philosophically that Division II should be at a point where access is not as big a question,” he said. “The brackets should be very broad in the beginning and then as you advance through, of course, then there’s a premium on quality.”

He acknowledged that such an approach would be expensive, but he also contended that it is one way that Division II (which already has the most inclusive championships-access figures among Divisions I, II and III) could further distinguish itself from the other divisions.

 Proposal principles

Here are the basic principles of proposals presented to Division II delegates at the 2006 NCAA Convention by the Division II Regionalization and Football Task Forces:

 Regionalization

* Regions would be determined by state boundaries.

* A state could be considered a part of more than one region.

* Conferences would be assigned to specific regions.

* Conference opponents would be considered in-region, regardless of where the institution is located.

* All opponents within a region would be considered in-region.

* Opponents within an institution’s home state would be considered in-region, regardless of conference affiliation.

* All opponents, regardless of conference affiliation, in states contiguous to an institution’s state would be considered in-region.

Football

* Division II would establish two football championships.

* One championship would be for teams providing up to 40 football equivalencies, the other for teams providing up to 24. Neither playoff would have a minimum equivalency requirement.

* Overall access to the football playoffs would remain the same as it is now (24 postseason opportunities).

* A single committee would be responsible for both championships.

* The current Division II football budget would have to support both playoffs (football has achieved a significant surplus each of the last three years).

* Conferences would be required to provide three years’ notice if they desired to change their football championship designation.